Wikipedia:Peer review/Goldfrapp/archive1
This article has been through a lot and I just expanded and re-wrote large parts of it, keeping certain bits of information here and there. I have tried to make it as informative as I can and would like it to be a feature article in the furture. Any feedback would make the article better. Also, I think it needs an audio sample, but I'm not sure how to do this. --Underneath-it-All 04:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm a little uneasy over all the fair-use images, and the tone jes strikes me as a little off. Other thn that, looks fairly good. --maru (talk) contribs 05:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Maru about the unnecessary use of fair use images. Also, compound adjectives[1] are misspelled throughout the article, and things like magazines and TV shows should be in italics (see WP:MOS#Italics). The lead should be rewritten (it's a little confusing that their latest album is mentioned before the others and then again, at the end of the lead). Years are overlinked throughout the article (see date formatting). The article is full of weasel words (e.g. "critically acclaimed") which should be avoided (see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words). Some of the especially problematic sentences:
- "leading the duo being named one of 2000s greatest discoveries." - by whom?
- "Time Out New York hailing Felt Mountain as "One of the most accomplished albums we've ever heard" and Rolling Stone Magazine simply stating "Awesome"." - this needs proper citations (which issues, etc.)
- "Goldfrapp also became a live show favorite," - whose "favorite"?!
- "The two recorded and demod everything they came up with" - "demod"? Is that a real word?
- "Its follow-up, "Number 1", a beautiful love song" - "beautiful" is clearly POV
- --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Maru about the unnecessary use of fair use images. Also, compound adjectives[1] are misspelled throughout the article, and things like magazines and TV shows should be in italics (see WP:MOS#Italics). The lead should be rewritten (it's a little confusing that their latest album is mentioned before the others and then again, at the end of the lead). Years are overlinked throughout the article (see date formatting). The article is full of weasel words (e.g. "critically acclaimed") which should be avoided (see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words). Some of the especially problematic sentences: